We Knew this was coming.

[Book of Jeremiah]

Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny little muscles in front of you.

Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.

Being less physically strong then men does not make women weaker. There is so much more to true strength than just the ability to lift heavy objects.

True but when you are depending on that true strength to carry your physical body out of a combat zone you will be looking for the one with the ability to lift heavy objects as well. Which is one of several reasons why women should not be anywhere near a combat zone. ( personally I don't believe they belong in the military at all. Let them be work behind the scenes at a desk or a military hospital if they want to help out )

 

[Bloodrock44]

I'll never forget the day I reported into my first unit (armored cav). There were 12 women in the unit (admin, cooks, medics). I could hear my squadron commander in his office pitching a fit because 9 of the 12 were pregnant.

 

[MikeK]

And people wonder why the Taliban is winning...

Who are the Taliban?

Can you identify each of them individually?

What uniform do they wear?

Do you know they once were known as the Mujahideen, whom we once supported in their purging of Russian troops from their homeland -- just as we would do, and just as they now are trying to do to us? And do you believe they have a natural human right to do that?

Did you know we gave them the Stinger missiles they now use to shoot down our helicopters and kill our troops?

Do you believe the internal political conflicts which take place in other nations are quite simply none of our business?

Do you know that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the drone attacks that kill innocent civilians, are responsible for recruiting more fighters to Taliban's ranks than they possibly could recruit without our provocation?

All of the above amounts to one undeniable reality -- which is our actions in the Middle East have been 100% counterproductive and remain so. If you believe otherwise it's because you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed. And that is a fact, not a wise-ass observation.

 

[Vikrant]

Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.

 

[Kondor3]

Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.

There is Man's Law...

There is Nature's Law...

You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...

Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...

With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...

I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...

 

[Vikrant]

Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.

There is Man's Law...

There is Nature's Law...

You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...

Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...

With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...

I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...

Your reply to my post is baseless. You have not even addressed the issues I have mentioned in my post.

 

[Kondor3]

Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.

There is Man's Law...

There is Nature's Law...

You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...

Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...

With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...

I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...

Your reply to my post is baseless. You have not even addressed the issues I have mentioned in my post.

I have addressed it by saying that you have Man's Law on your side...

I have also blown right past it by saying that your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

Your legal and ethical arguments are formidable...

Your legal and ethical arguments cannot be allowed to prevail in matters of Life and Death, amongst those who know better...

Your legal and ethical arguments will not matter a damn when some young women - operating under the delusion that she can go toe-to-toe with a similarly trained and equipped man, finds her lifes' blood draining out of her body, because you - and those who think like you - were foolhardy enough to allow her to indulge her delusion, so that you-and-yours could feel good about being 'fair' in your treatment of the genders, in this narrow context...

My reply is not baseless...

It concedes much of the field to your range of arguments...

It simply holds firm with respect to matters of Nature...

And you find that irritating...

The observation stands...

Come back when you've got military experience of your own to play from...

Until then, you'll have to settle for a seat at the kiddie-table, in this particular matter...

You make a fine argument...

It's just that that argument won't mean shit in a foxhole, with the enemy about to swarm-over the position of such unfortunate and foolish women...

We argue against it for them... and we argue against it for those poor males that will have the misfortune to be deployed with them...

You-and-yours are dangerous in this matter...

This is not a matter of Law and Ethics...

This a matter of Nature in all its raw and unvarnished and ugly truth...

'Fair' has nothing to do with it...

 

[dreolin]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

 

[dreolin]

There is Man's Law...

There is Nature's Law...

You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...

Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...

With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...

I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...

Your reply to my post is baseless. You have not even addressed the issues I have mentioned in my post.

I have addressed it by saying that you have Man's Law on your side...

I have also blown right past it by saying that your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

Your legal and ethical arguments are formidable...

Your legal and ethical arguments cannot be allowed to prevail in matters of Life and Death, amongst those who know better...

Your legal and ethical arguments will not matter a damn when some young women - operating under the delusion that she can go toe-to-toe with a similarly trained and equipped man, finds her lifes' blood draining out of her body, because you - and those who think like you - were foolhardy enough to allow her to indulge her delusion, so that you-and-yours could feel good about being 'fair' in your treatment of the genders, in this narrow context...

My reply is not baseless...

It concedes much of the field to your range of arguments...

It simply holds firm with respect to matters of Nature...

And you find that irritating...

The observation stands...

Come back when you've got military experience of your own to play from...

Until then, you'll have to settle for a seat at the kiddie-table, in this particular matter...

You make a fine argument...

It's just that that argument won't mean shit in a foxhole, with the enemy about to swarm-over the position of such unfortunate and foolish women...

We argue against it for them... and we argue against it for those poor males that will have the misfortune to be deployed with them...

You-and-yours are dangerous in this matter...

This is not a matter of Law and Ethics...

This a matter of Nature in all its raw and unvarnished and ugly truth...

'Fair' has nothing to do with it...

This "Nature" you talk about would also seem to indicate that you are opposed to male soldiers in combat MOSes that are over 26 years of age?

 

[Kondor3]

"...This 'Nature' you talk about would also seem to indicate that you are opposed to male soldiers in combat MOSes that are over 26 years of age?"

There are, indeed, age limitations that make perfect sense - at least during periods when the 'labor supply' is ample - although I am uncertain what the Magic Number is (26, 30, etc.).

I am also aware that during times of national crisis - such as WWI and WWII - we drafted men in the age-range of 18 - 45, when it became difficult to find enough younger men.

I am also aware that older 'career men' (lifers) in the military are oftentimes allowed into combat even in our current volunteer-military configuration.

This 'Nature' I speak of would still have the average trained 45-year-old victorious over the average trained 25-year-old female in up-close hand-to-hand combat.

Why do you ask?

 

[Kondor3]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

I don't think anyone here is advocating that females can't function well-enough in combat flight operations, nor field-artillery operations, nor even armored operations (except for brute-strength tasks like repairing treads, etc.) - with the caveat that they're going to be at a disadvantage if they're shot-down or their rig is disabled and they have to fight on foot.

No... the biggest objection comes in terms of Infantry units and an Infantry MOS.

Opponents (myself included) believe that women do not belong there, and that this is dictated by Natural Law rather than Man's Law.

Your average trained female simply cannot defeat your average and similarly-trained male in up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat.

What you and I think about that, and what the law says about that, and what militant rights activists think about that, and whether it's fair or not - none of that changes Nature.

 

[MHunterB]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

I don't think anyone here is advocating that females can't function well-enough in combat flight operations, nor field-artillery operations, nor even armored operations (except for brute-strength tasks like repairing treads, etc.) - with the caveat that they're going to be at a disadvantage if they're shot-down or their rig is disabled and they have to fight on foot.

No... the biggest objection comes in terms of Infantry units and an Infantry MOS.

Opponents (myself included) believe that women do not belong there, and that this is dictated by Natural Law rather than Man's Law.

Your average trained female simply cannot defeat your average and similarly-trained male in up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat.

What you and I think about that, and what the law says about that, and what militant rights activists think about that, and whether it's fair or not - none of that changes Nature.

That isn't much of an objection IMO - since only something around 1 in 13 are line troops. So about 1/13th of our force needs to meet the current/recent physical standards: there's no point in having a neurosurgeon who's 6'4" and really buffed except that his bulging biceps look great in those scrubs......

Silly idea: have one set of PT standards, gender-neutral, for combat MOS's and another for those REMF's everyone loves to hate.

Oh, and I think there is a valid reason for pushing troops to their breaking point in Basic: one doesn't get to 'quit' and walk out in the middle of a fire-fight. I'm expressing the idea poorly, I know - but there is that unique aspect of military, police and firefighting work (and possibly a couple of other fields as well). If people don't have the training and info and equipment they need - what's lost are lives, not money.

 

[Moonglow]

U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com


Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.

Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........

This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....

It's sad.

My aunt is 60 years old and can still kick your ass.

 

[Edgetho]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

Coordinates is all I ever needed.

 

[dreolin]

"...This 'Nature' you talk about would also seem to indicate that you are opposed to male soldiers in combat MOSes that are over 26 years of age?"

There are, indeed, age limitations that make perfect sense - at least during periods when the 'labor supply' is ample - although I am uncertain what the Magic Number is (26, 30, etc.).

I am also aware that during times of national crisis - such as WWI and WWII - we drafted men in the age-range of 18 - 45, when it became difficult to find enough younger men.

I am also aware that older 'career men' (lifers) in the military are oftentimes allowed into combat even in our current volunteer-military configuration.

This 'Nature' I speak of would still have the average trained 45-year-old victorious over the average trained 25-year-old female in up-close hand-to-hand combat.

Why do you ask?

Well, I was in rom '68-'71, went to finish college, and re-upped from '75-'78. they were obviously diferent armies but that isn't omportant.

Anyay, combat MOS and we had to qualify annually with the M-16 and pass an anual PT test. I am pretty sure those were army wide requirements, at least for combat MOSes.

Well, I recall that they made adjustments, for the older soldiers depending on age, what some people here seem to be referring to as "lowering the standards".

There is a differnce between re-evaluating standards and lowering them. The fields of war change and if we have a military that doesn't adapt to those changes, we are gonna be suckin' hind tit.

Women will do fine.

 

[dreolin]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

Coordinates is all I ever needed.

Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.

You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".

Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.

 

[dreolin]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

I don't think anyone here is advocating that females can't function well-enough in combat flight operations, nor field-artillery operations, nor even armored operations (except for brute-strength tasks like repairing treads, etc.) - with the caveat that they're going to be at a disadvantage if they're shot-down or their rig is disabled and they have to fight on foot.

No... the biggest objection comes in terms of Infantry units and an Infantry MOS.

Opponents (myself included) believe that women do not belong there, and that this is dictated by Natural Law rather than Man's Law.

Your average trained female simply cannot defeat your average and similarly-trained male in up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat.

What you and I think about that, and what the law says about that, and what militant rights activists think about that, and whether it's fair or not - none of that changes Nature.

I think that if you are in a hand to hand combat, somewhere along the line someone made a very bad decision, first of all. It doesn't happen that often and produces some heroes for the 5:00 news and a whole lot of dead soldiers...film at 11.

But it happens.

Two things. I had a very hard, physical labor job that women were prohibitted from doing until they were allowed, and they did fine. I had the best first sergeant in the world. He was about 5'5" and couldn't have weighed more than 125 and knew a couple of similarly sized people in basic who went to become airborne rangers. They ain't gonna be humpin' this legendary 210 buddy off the battleffield burt hey, I will be glad to help them...and this 210 pound enemy of equal legend, well, i will put my top and two airborne buds against him anytime.

You keep talking about "Nature". Well, women are naturally better at risk assessment and management than men, research has shown. It isn't that big a deal...but maybe some of these hand to hand situations that seem to be everywhere could be avoided if some woman inf. Lt. would look at her O-3 and suggest "I don't really think we have to take that hill, Sir. The one right next to it is higher and not teeming with thousands of bad guys, and it is just a mortar round away."

You keep talking about the "average" man and the "average" woman. That is a somewhat arbitrary and vague definition/assessment...and I think you are losing a lot of good, women soldiers who would succeed admirably and serve with honor and valor in combat fields.

Can I get an 11 Charlie outta ya...LOL.

 

[MikeK]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

I've never called in a fire mission -- mainly because I was never in combat. But I was an Engineer (bulldozer operator) assigned to artillery batteries (105mm howitzers). I am very well acquainted with every aspect of putting those guns in service in the field and I can tell you it takes a lot of muscle, not only to dig pits and seat the guns but to hump ammo -- and do it all fast.

I can tell you for sure that except for the extreme exception, artillery is not a practical MOS for women.

 

[Edgetho]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

Coordinates is all I ever needed.

Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.

You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".

Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.

I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone. In combat

With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed. Talk about 'pucker factor'. I usually asked for a smoke round first..... One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire. We had two guns. Montagnards on both. Neither one was literate. Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me. "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.

Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way. You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.

We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them. Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were. Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.

"Hey Sam. Where da **** are we?"

"Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."

"Cool. I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.

And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that

And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away. In minutes.

I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck. Really suck. And regular Huey Gunships.

The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq. Fly Boys......

I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than ******* useless. We were out of range of our guys. Which happened a lot.

They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.

I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us. At all.

When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.*******.Now.

Oh, used to crack me up....... When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.

I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice ******* ambush waiting for you?"

I absolutely refused to work with regular units. Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.

I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.

Worked every time. I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers. Good at what they do.

 

[Edgetho]

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?

I've never called in a fire mission -- mainly because I was never in combat. But I was an Engineer (bulldozer operator) assigned to artillery batteries (105mm howitzers). I am very well acquainted with every aspect of putting those guns in service in the field and I can tell you it takes a lot of muscle, not only to dig pits and seat the guns but to hump ammo -- and do it all fast.

I can tell you for sure that except for the extreme exception, artillery is not a practical MOS for women.

True.....

You guys hardly ever take showers